Avis juridique important

61999J0219

European Court reports 2001 Page I-01093

Parties

In Case C-219/99,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

French Republic, represented by K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts (OJ 1995 L 213, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 23 November 2000,

gives the following

By application lodged at the Court Registry on 8 June 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts (OJ 1995 L 213, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Directive 95/16 is intended to harmonise safety standards applicable to lifts. It lays down for that purpose the essential requirements which lifts must meet before being placed on the market.

Under Article 15(1) of Directive 95/16, the Member States were required to adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by 1 January 1997 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof. Those measures were applicable from 1 July 1997.

Since the directive had not been transposed into French law within the prescribed period, the Commission initiated the Treaty infringement procedure. After giving the French Republic the opportunity to submit its observations, the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion on 12 February 1998 calling on the French Government to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the opinion within two months from its notification. As the French Republic did not act on the reasoned opinion, the Commission brought the present action.

The French Government does not dispute that Directive 95/16 was not transposed within the prescribed period. However, in order to demonstrate its good faith, it explains the delay, referring both to difficulties of an internal nature and to difficulties which result, in its view, from the Community legal order.

After the written procedure had ended, the French Government informed the Court, by letter of 3 October 2000, that Directive 95/16 had been implemented by Decree No 2000-810 of 24 August 2000 on the placing of lifts on the market (Journal Officiel de la République Française of 27 August 2000, p. 13235).

The Court has consistently held that amendments to national legislation are irrelevant for the purposes of giving judgment on the subject-matter of an action for failure to fulfil obligations if they have not been implemented before the expiry of the period set by the reasoned opinion (see Case C-123/94 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1457, paragraph 7, and Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland [1999] ECR I-5901, paragraph 86).

In the present case, Directive 95/16 was not transposed within the period set by it. Accordingly, the Commission's action must be considered well founded.

It must therefore be held that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 95/16, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

Decision on costs

Costs

Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the French Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Second Chamber) hereby: